Follow us on social

Mohammad_bin_salman_in_washington_-_2018_26083237057

Saudi bodyguards have been training in the U.S. since Obama. Why?

Revelations that Khashoggi's killers were trained by a private security contractor in the States have raised some uncomfortable questions.

Analysis | Middle East

Four of the 15 Saudis involved in the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi received training in the United States, according to the New York Times. The story highlights the depth of the U.S.-Saudi relationship, the critique of which has simmered following Khashoggi’s grisly murder and dismemberment in October 2018. 

Tier 1 Group, the security company that conducted the training of the four Saudi men, has stressed that the instruction they received had no relation to the acts of brutal violence they carried out against Khashoggi. Instead, the training was defensive in nature, intended to “counter an attack” ostensibly against a high profile individual. This reiterates the link to Mohamed bin Salman, as members of MBS’ personal protection squad carried out the killing, although the Saudis continue to deny the Crown Prince’s responsibility in ordering the murder.

Yet the revelation also underscores the fact that the problems underpinning the U.S.-Saudi relationship predate the Trump White House, as well as Mohammed bin Salman’s tenure as crown prince. The four Saudis were trained in 2017, but two also received training between 2014 and 2015, while Obama was president, and King Abdullah was still on the Saudi throne. The question emerges as to why Saudi operatives receive training in the United States at all?

The military partnership between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia reflects the countries’ 75-year-long relationship. Historically, Washington had to overcome the mismatch between Saudi policy and values that the United States claimed to uphold — democracy, individual liberty, gender equality, freedom of expression — because of American dependence on Saudi oil. Yet the United States surpassed Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest exporter of oil in 2019; instead the majority of Saudi fossil fuels now travel eastwards to Asian markets. Although the global economy remains dependent on fossil fuels, U.S. willingness to ignore Saudi abuses and crimes can no longer be explained by America’s addiction to Saudi oil.

Instead, it is the American military industrial complex that remains dependent on Saudi Arabia as a wealthy and valued customer. Although the Trump administration increased the sale of U.S. weapons by 23 percent, many of them to Saudi Arabia, the Obama administration sold vast quantities of weapons to the Saudis as well. The Biden administration, after initially committing to end the sale of offensive weapons that could be used to attack Yemen, has allowed certain sales to proceed.

At the time of Khashoggi’s murder, Congress denounced the Trump administration’s close partnership with the Saudis, even passing an historic War Powers Resolution, which Trump vetoed. Yet since Biden’s ascension to power, perhaps because Biden himself initially signaled that he would be tough on the Saudis, critique of the relationship has been more muted. Members needn't have worried: the Biden administration also has deep ties to the defense industry.

As long as the United States merely pays lip service to the preservation of human rights, or only points out abuses by U.S. adversaries while ignoring the crimes of U.S. partners, Biden's efforts to restore America's moral authority will fail. The Biden administration should suspend all arms sales to Saudi Arabia and drastically reduce its military partnership with the House of Saud. Until that occurs, Americans should prepare for more embarrassing revelations about the depth of the U.S.-Saudi relationship.


Then-Defense Secretary James N. Mattis meets with Saudi Arabia’s Minister of Defense, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz, at the Pentagon in Washington D.C., Mar. 22, 2018. (DoD photo by Navy Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Kathryn E. Holm)
Analysis | Middle East
Gaza ceasefire
Top photo credit: A Palestinian boy walks in front of an Israeli rocket in the street in Gaza City, Palestine, on October 30, 2025. Israel says it strikes an arms dump in Gaza on October 29, hours after the deadliest night of bombing since the start of a US-brokered truce, warning it will continue to operate to take out perceived threats. (Photo by Majdi Fathi/NurPhoto)

The Gaza ceasefire is falling apart

Middle East

Even a limited pause in the unspeakable suffering that residents of the Gaza Strip have endured for two years is welcome, and thus it is unsurprising that the deal on Gaza that was reached in early October was widely and mistakenly termed a “peace agreement.”

The deal was instead a prisoner exchange and limited ceasefire. It came about because the slaughter and starvation of Gazans had gone so far that Hamas was willing to give up its scant leverage in the form of the remaining Israeli hostages. With their release, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu removed the main immediate domestic source of opposition to his policies, while the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) got a needed break before resuming operations.

keep readingShow less
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Are American 'boomers' at risk?

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Nuclear explosion
Top image credit: Let’s curb loose talk of using lower-yield nuclear weapons

Reckless posturing: Trump says he wants to resume nuke testing

Global Crises

President Donald Trump’s October 29 announcement that the United States will restart nuclear weapons testing after more than 30 years marks a dangerous turning point in international security.

The decision lacks technical justification and appears solely driven by geopolitical posturing.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.